A Co Kildare farmer who has initiated a number of High Court and Supreme Court cases against the Bank of Ireland is again taking the bank to court.
This time Mr James Behan (57), of Dollardstown House, Athy, Co Kildare, is alleging fraud and seeking damages of £3.7 million (€4.7 million). He claims the bank failed to inform him he had been included in a Government scheme reducing interest rates for farmers in difficulty.
A spokeswoman for the bank said it would not be making any comment. The bank has in the past said the matter complained of has already been ruled on by the courts. The bank has also said it never benefited from the matter at the centre of the dispute.
Two weeks ago a motion from the bank for the dismissal of the case was unsuccessful and the bank was given 21 days to file a defence. Mr Behan, who is to represent himself in court, expects the case will be heard later this year.
Mr Behan at one stage had 240 acres of tillage and grassland in the Athy area. He now owns 20 acres. He became a customer of the Bank of Ireland in 1977. By 1983 he had borrowings exceeding £160,000.
According to his statement of claim, Mr Behan made a loss of £40,000 in 1982 but returned a profit of £18,000 the following year.
In August 1983 he applied for inclusion in the Government's "Reduced Interest Scheme for Farmers in Severe Financial Difficulty". The scheme was administered by the banks, including Bank of Ireland.
In December 1983 the Bank of Ireland called in its debts. Mr Behan closed his business and sold his assets.
He claims the bank failed to inform him that he had been included in the reduced interest scheme, and drew down funds for its own use. During the course of earlier hearings it was disclosed that the bank drew down £18,455 from the Revenue as part of the government scheme and in relation to Mr Behan. The amount was credited to the farmer's account after he had settled with the bank.
In July 1998 it was stated in a Supreme Court ruling that "the fact of the payment by the bank to the plaintiff of a sum of approximately £18,000 in accordance with the provisions of the farm rescue package, was returned to the Revenue so as to obtain a fiscal advantage upon which the scheme was based".
The bank claimed that the whole affair constituted nothing more than a bookkeeping exercise, but this was not accepted by the court. Mr Behan lost the case he took against the bank claiming he had been badly advised.
